Android Now Dominates the Tablet Market Too

According to the market researchers at Gartner, sales of tablets based on Google's Android mobile OS dramatically surpassed those of the slowing iPad. And while Windows-based tablets are still just a tiny part of the market, Microsoft got a tidbit of good news: They were responsible for the biggest growth by far.

And while Android already controls 80 percent of the market for smart phones, Gartner says it now owns 62 percent of the tablet market too, a big increase from its 46 percent market share in 2012. Windows is a distant third with 2.1 percent market share.

The big news here, of course, is the rise of Android. According to Gartner, hardware makers shipped 121 million Android-based tablets in 2013, up from 53 million in 2012 and a unit shipment of over double. Meanwhile, while sales of Apple's iPad lineup did grow from 61 million to 70 million units in the same timeframe, that's just a 15 percent bump in unit shipments.

The 16.8 percentage point drop in iPad market share was attributed to both the improved quality of smaller low-cost tablets from branded vendors like Samsung and Amazon, and grow in emerging markets, where cheap "white box" vendors reign.

On the Windows side of the fence, sales grew to 4 million units, up over three times from the 1.2 million hardware makers delivered in 2012, the biggest growth in the group. It's not clear what Gartner is measuring here, though the firm calls out Lenovo and its Yoga products, which are hybrid PCs (or 2-in-1s, or transforming PCs, depending on who you ask) and not just tablets. (The firm notes that it includes "hybrids and clamshells" in its tablet count. Are these all multi-touch devices?)

Speaking of Lenovo, Gartner reports that the top five tablet vendors in 2013 were Apple, Samsung, ASUS, Amazon and Lenovo. Apple sold 70 million iPads, good for 36 percent share as noted, and down from 53 percent the previous year. But number two Samsung surged: It sold 37 million units, with 19 percent market share, up from 8.6 million units and 7.4 percent market share in 2012. That's an astonishing leap of 4.3x, and suggests that Samsung is on track to overtake Apple in the tablet market in the same way it did in smart phones. Could Samsung surpass Apple as soon as this year?

The remainder of the top five all have single digit markets share—11 million units and 5.6 percent market share for ASUS, 9.4 million and 4.8 percent for Amazon and 6.5 million and 3.3 percent for Lenovo, respectively—and only Lenovo saw major growth year-over-year. That firm jumped from 1.9 percent of the market to 3.3 percent in 2013.

Looking over the numbers, it's pretty hard to imagine Microsoft and Windows making huge strides here. Fast growth is easy to achieve when you start from a small place—just witness the Mac—but that doesn't always translate into big market share gains down the road (again, witness the Mac). Windows 8.1 has apparently had a bit of an impact on sales, but I'd guess that improved designs from hardware makers had even more of an impact. Which of course explains the cheaper new licensing for low-cost Windows devices: If you can't convince customers with software design, go for the pocketbooks. This, I suspect, will be the trend to watch in 2014, whether consumers will fall for very cheap Windows tablets.

Oh, Apple cares very much about market share, they even touted it in keynotes back in the day.

Unfortunately, market share has long since become Android's strong suit, and much like number of apps in the store and number of apps downloaded, has now been relegated to the category of retroactive irrelevance.

Tell-tale, and most recent sign of the trend is the ephemeral "profit share" that has leapt to fame in recent months. Expect to see ever more contorted metrics to take centre stage as each successive product starts its fall from its strong initial market presence.

Apple cares about selling hardware. And in that arena, it is doing very well (both in mobile devices as well as computers). Only Samsung is in the same league in the mobile scene.

Not Motorola. Not HTC. Not LG. Not Dell. Not Acer. Not ASUS. Not Casio. Not Huawei. Not Lenovo. Not Orange. Not Sony. Not Toshiba. And not any of the dozens of other OEM's that use Android.

However, in combination, they do overtake Apple's three phones and three tablets that they currently have on the market. No kidding.
Why don't you (and Google, as well as Paul), break down the market by those metrics I state above? Wouldn't that put things in a different light?

And why are you afraid to use profit share metrics when compared to the other manufacturers? Because once again it would put yours (and Pauls) argument to shame?
Ask any other business out there if profit share is not important to them. Ask any consumer whether or not profit share is important to the health and stability of a company. Ask any entrepreneur what is more important to them: having healthy profit margins, or racing to the bottom to simply get product out at cost or a loss. Ask anyone that one.

Or do you insist on using OS market share simply because it is the only one that makes the other Android manufacturers actually have an advantage?

Apple does not partake in Android land. They do not have to, thankfully. But you need to ask yourself this: if Apple had opened up iOS back in 2008, do you think Android would have had a chance to gain more than 5-10% market share? A large herd of birdies tells me no.
As a result, when competing again a massive hoard of manufacturers, it is inevitable that they will catch up and overtake iOS with Android (years later...). But that does not infer that Apple is in any kind of distress, or that the Android makers are doing very well.

Having 20% market share while possessing 70-80% profit share (while everyone else except Samsung are losing money in mobile) is a position in which everyone else is obviously incredibly envious of.
And they should be.

Actually I can think of a way in which having low profits and aiming at high market (usage?) shares can be strategically beneficial...
--
Imagine that the product in sale is a bacteria...
Higher market (usage?) shares means the bacteria has spread or is very contagious. Higher profits would mean the bacteria is deadly or induces worse symptoms.

A deadly bacteria that isn't very contagious isn't likely to survive the long run, as it may kill more hosts than it can infect.

A contagious bacteria that isn't very dangerous may actually survive a long time. Maybe long enough to evolve and become stronger, more resistant and deadly. Killing much more hosts and therefore being much more feared in the longest run.

So, if you sell your product cheap and wait patiently after you have "infected" a large portion of the population, you can raise the prices in order to notably increase your profits, in the very long run.

Just my opinion. It may not be the perfect analogy but it may shake your brains just a little ;)

However, it makes my point eloquently. Competing (and holding its own quite well) against at least a dozen other competitors who have little choice but to use Android as an alternative, there is obviously going to be market share dilution on the part of Apple.

However, they have two choices: Compete strongly for the customers with high tastes and fat wallets. Or dilute their brand by designing lower quality product, slashing prices, and offering poorer support.

Quite frankly, there is absolutely no need for them to choose the latter. None at all. It would be almost better for them to take their money, shutter the doors and close down.

Apple has never ultimately been in a race to gain market share. It has been about designing a superior product, improving the user experience, increasing hardware sales, and reaping the benefits.
Can you imagine another high end manufacturer who chooses to dilute their design standards and price for the sake of market share? Name me one valid example. I'll name you a company that will quickly lose relevance (or go out of business).

Samsung may have increased sales this year, but its mobile division also suffered lower revenues and operating profit. Same with every other Android vendor.

Market share does not win the game. Superior design, superior user experience, and superior support gain and hold customer brand recognition and retention every time.
The only relevant advantage the Android vendors appear to be fighting with is price. Because they certainly don't appear to be competing in the other categories.

The only one that comes close is believe it or not the Surface 2 (yes, you read that right). The Surface has excellent hardware standards IMO. However crippled it is by a confusing Jekyll and Hyde UX and poor app ecosystem, the hardware is compelling. Unlike in most cases the poor tablet designs by Samsung and other Android vendors.

Look, I understand there is a large market for those who are willing to purchase poorly designed commoditized junk for low cost. In fact, there may be a higher market for that than those who are willing to spend more for more elegant, refined products. And there are obviously going to be companies that are more than happy to take advantage of that fact. Thats great.

However, Apple purposely chooses not to make products for that market. They choose a much higher standard. Granted, they don't hit the target every time, and even make the occasional huge blunder now and again. But no one can claim that they do not make every strive to attain and surpass those higher standards, while their competitors are sometimes years behind.

Market share means nothing when it comes to those factors. Market share in this particular case is a worthless metric, whether it is used by Android vendors or by Apple.
Mercedes Benz, Lamborghini and Porsche barely show up as blips on the market share radar. And yet it cannot be argued otherwise that those companies design and ship superior products to happy customers, have incredibly healthy financials, and are the envy of almost everyone. Most people that are sour about them is likely due to the fact that they either cannot afford them, or simply lack taste.

But how long can that last? How long can their share continue to decrease and they still make big profits. How long will it be before the perception in Apple products not being top products begins. They're making plenty of money now, but they still need to continue selling a lot of phones and tablets. Of course their share is decreasing primarily because the market is larger, but what if their sales begin to drop? Does it not matter as long as they have profits?

"But how long can that last? How long can their share continue to decrease and they still make big profits."

As long as their sales increase. Their share of the pie can actually go down, but their sales and profit can still increase. And so far, that does not appear to be danger any time soon. While the US growth is slowing due to saturation, China appears to be more than making up the slack, with the reasonable expectation of 30 million iPhone sales there this year alone, and steady growth expected for the coming future. There are other areas where iPhone is growing also. Not at break neck speed, granted. But it doesn't need to.
Worldwide Apple market share can actually lower, but still continue record breaking sales year after year. Remember, this is only one company. All they need to do is soak up the high end. Let everyone else fight for low-end scraps that pay little to nothing, both in hardware and in app purchases.

Historically, Apple has done one of two things, typically much better than their competitors.
1) Upgrade/improve the previous model. Much like the Mac lineup.
2) Cannibalize their won with a completely new product line. Much like what happened with the iPod when the iPhone arrived. iPhone slowly made the iPod obsolete for most people. But they still got the sales.

"Does it not matter as long as they have profits?"

They will continue to have both sales and profits as long as they can keep releasing well-designed hardware and a compelling user experience.
They don't need to overwhelm their users with the whole kitchen sink like Samsung tries to do. They just need to do a few things very well, and overcome and learn from the inevitable occasional missteps they do incur. And they do both very well.

While some companies can do one or two things better than Apple, you would be hard pressed to find a company that provides the whole widget the way Apple does with such a superior user experience in the consumer arena. It takes more than bigger screens and gimmicks.

I'm confused by some of the calculations here. Going fro 116 million to 195 million isn't 168% increase. A 100% increase would be a doubling of the original number. So shouldn't it be 195-116=79 then 79/116=.68 .68*100= 68% increase?

When it comes to the tablets, I think it's more about price. I'll be quite honest, the only thing holding me back from getting a Windows 8.1 Pro tablet IS the price. I'd never waste my money on an Apple or Android product, so I'm content to continue using my Toshiba laptop until a suitable Win8 Pro tablet comes along. I just can't see spending 2x more on a tablet than what I did for my laptop and get a less capable device in the deal.

It would be easy to try helping you if you shared your current specs or the cost you expect or paid for your laptop.
It's fine If you prefer not to share your numbers. We should be seeing much more powerful tablets/2in1s soon anyways.

Price is definitely a factor. Though the 8" Lenova Miix is $100 off this week at Best Buy and I still couldn't pull the trigger. I don't find enough apps I like yet on a Windows Device to replace my Nexus 7. I want Windows, but a few of my favs aren't there, so even though that tablet is at an awesome price, I'm not buying.

Not really. Samsung is still the number 1 maker of Android phones and tablets out there. Yes, there are others, but Samsung is way ahead. It's all about spin. That's always the spin "Apple's share is lower because there are so many making Android" but why can't the opposite be true? Apples share and profits are only as high as they are because they're one company making everything.

To be fair to Mac, Apple owns the market for laptops costing over $1000. Plus, Apple earns the highest margins for just about all the product they produce at the cost of marketshare.

Android is a juggernaut that keeps on expanding. I believe the opportunity for Windows is the Enterprise, the Gaming Market, and Business Apps. It is time for Microsoft to get theri act together. While they made great strides to narrow the gap with services, it just seems so futile since Microsoft seems to give up especially after achieving some momentum for certain software and services. Perception is just as important and they are losing people to Android when it offers an inferior experience. Despite how many times Android is updated, it is still Android the crappy OS with laggy performance; however, we perceive it to be moving forward.

Microsoft needs to be the true alternative to Android. Just don't give up so easily.

Price is important, but value and design (usability) are more so. I have been looking at Win tablets very closely and did not see anything I would buy at any price until recently. My "perfect" device would be 11 or 12 inch, i5 or i7, 8gGB RAM, some kind of keyboard, under 2 grand. Along comes Sony and adds more memory and drops the price on the Tab 11. So I just bought the i7 model with 8 GB RAM 256 GB SS storage, full sized USB 3, card slot, HDMI, 11.6", magnetic keyboard/cover, thin, light, beauty. $1,499.00.

This is what a Windows tablet should be.

In the past I have had all 3 versions of Nook (Android), and the HD is a very capable daily driver for most tasks. But I am willing to pay the price for a real Win device that can do everything my desktop can (my desktop is an old Core Duo!) and is portable. Now I can go to customer sites and jump on my SharePoint site to get what ever I need to get the job done. I will take it on vacation and still be able to remote in to servers and keeps things going.

This is why the desktop market is shrinking; sometimes a mobile device is just better.

"while sales of Apple's iPad lineup did grow from 61 million to 70 million units in the same timeframe, that's just a 15 percent bump in unit shipments."

Ok I'm a little confused here Paul. I've heard you say on What The Tech & Windows Weekly numerous times over the years that shipped=sold right? OK so going by that standard Apple increases it's 'shipments' every year without fail. Actually since Apple reports sell through numbers that's what is ending up in users hands. No Android vendor dares release such information for tablets or phones. I wonder why? And if we are talking about usage after the sale, which translates to even more money in services, well we know who the king of that hill is too don't we?

You mention these 'white box' units being sold which are all over China & the far east in developing markets. That is really meaningless since Gartner is the only firm that dares try & give Android credit for those units. They don't even have Google services on them before or after the sell so what's the point in trying to invent some imaginary metrics for a product that cannot be reasonably tracked?

The tablet market is growing & like it or not Apple is growing right along with it. It may have slowed but that'll happen to all vendors in this space as it matures much like smartphones. It's equivalent to Samsung being hailed as the king of smartphones. Sure they ship more units, the majority of which are dumbed down handsets barely qualifying as a smartphone. And they never report the ratio of those subpar units to top of the line Galaxy units. Again I wonder why? Tablets are the same trap for Samsung. Every few months more junk is thrown against the wall to see what sticks & then it's quietly & unceremoniously left to die. Just look at all the junk they put on the Galaxy line of phones/tablets last year that they dropped this refresh.

I don't see Apple or Microsoft even being that reckless or desperate from all appearances to make a name for themselves. We know who is making the money in this space & it's Apple hands down. Android tablets, which are by & large craptastically unusable for the most part, & Google makes hardly any money off of them, are soon forgotten after release. At least Apple has an established product & name recognition & I believe Microsoft can do good things with the Surface line given time & patience to make the right moves.

It might be time to retire the use of some of these analytics firms who haven't updated their usage/sales/survey models since the 90s.

What I've said is that market share = units sold in a given time period.

Some people try to differentiate between sales into the channel vs. sales to actual consumers, but the reality is that the maker of a product gets paid when the product is sold, regardless of when/where that happens. So in the case of Windows, Microsoft gets paid when it sells Windows, either directly to a consumer at retail, or indirectly to a PC maker (which will then sell it with the PC to a consumer).

Usage share is a measure of actual usage, obviously, but it's much harder to measure. People will point to web metrics these days as a semi-accurate may to measure such a thing, but it will never be perfect.

I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I was trying to understand how shipping more products into the channel, meaning more sales & more money into the coffers, was a bad thing? Usage share is an imperfect science yes but so is this baloney 'white box' crap that Gartner is trumping up that even they admit is hard to determine. It's a big guessing game for even them. Yet they give Android, & by extension Google, credit for some huge market swing? Nonsense.

The whole idea behind all my blathering up there is to exercise a little more caution with all the accolades Google keeps getting credit for. I was in that camp for a couple of years & once I migrated back to Apple/Micrsoft exclusively I could see through the harm that company actually does. It's a truly despicable enterprise in most respects for consumers & most don't realize it until something bad happens to them online or some kind of fraud & they learn it can be traced back to Google using their info in an insecure manner. It happened to me. So I must question stories like this that put too much positive focus on what amounts to a giant piece of spyware/malware/adware being billed as an operating system.

It would seem you're right. Android is the tablet equivalent of the nintendo Wii.
I know many tens of people with them, but they're usually just tossed in a corner waiting for the odd time when they might become useful.
The market is saturated with crappy budget models, and since you can slap an android logo on any old piece of crap hardware people buy the cheap ones and rapidly make up their minds to never buy anything android again. The same with phones. Companies like Huawei are pumping out 512Mb phones with 2Gb storage and people get tremendously frustrated by the sluggishness of the OS (plus the junkware they are generally full of) they they either go back to their dumb/featurephones or save up for an iPhone.

I own the 1st gen nexus and its a great tablet, but i'm the only person who has one of these. Everyone else has the cruddy samsung tablets or worse, the ones you get for $120 at your local supermarket.

"It always struck me as odd that the company that couldn't care less about its devices being used is touting that figure."

Who said they didn't care about their products being used? Certainly not Apple. AFAIK, they would certainly prefer that if you purchase their product, that you enjoy using it. On the flip side, if you enjoy using their product, you are more likely to purchase again, as well as recommend it to their friends. Your statement makes no logical sense here.
Perhaps you meant to communicate something else?

"Then again, they're being slapped silly in the category they do care about, so I guess it's the best they could come up with."

And what category would that be? User satisfaction? Customer retention? Ease of use? Sales and profits? Superior branding? Support satisfaction?

Which category that they apparently care about so much are they being 'slapped silly' in? And which company is supposedly doing the slapping?

Apple makes money by selling devices. Apple also makes money when you buy something through their infrastructure. Apple might even make some money from you using an app. (Is Iads still a thing?) "Web usage" constitutes none of the above.

So the simple fact is that the stat cited in the linked article, "web usage", adds nothing to Apple's bottom line.

"Which category that they apparently care about so much are they being 'slapped silly' in?"

Number of devices sold. Number of apps downloaded. Number of ads served. (if Iads is still a thing, see above)

See, I understand why you'd list all the other soft factors, and maybe there is a second order effect from "web usage" on next generation device purchase, but it's apparently so weak that last year's leader in this stat (and by a huge margin, if the data linked is to be believed) suffered from slow growth (+15%) in an exploding market (+68%), and lost market share accordingly. (-17%)

Is there a correlation between "web usage" and device market share? If there is, and if 84% of "web usage" leads to sub-market growth and market share loss, how high would "web usage" have to climb to see Ipads growing at least in line with the market?

"Apple makes money by selling devices. Apple also makes money when you buy something through their infrastructure. Apple might even make some money from you using an app. (Is Iads still a thing?) "Web usage" constitutes none of the above."

Fair enough. There are two ways of looking at it. We are both looking at it from different angles.
You appear to be coming at it from whether or not the company makes any money off of it with ads.
I come from the angle on whether or not the device is being used often.
My argument is, if someone is using the device for apps and music, they are also likely using it for web usage. These days, if a device is not getting much web usage, then the device is likely not being used much, period. An unused device is not making anyone much money. It is also telling how desirable that device is to use in the first place.
I do believe that web usage is a fairly good indicator of device usage. Not completely accurate of course, but still as good an indicator as anything else. Take that as you will.

No, Apple doesn't really make much from iAds. Nor do I believe they intended to. It was a side project that took very little resources from them, and was worth trying. But it has not picked up traction. But it also was not even a secondary focus by Apple.

Back to the subject: the incredibly wide variation between iDevices and Android devices I think is very telling. Not of overall market share, of course. Android (all other OEMs combined) is clearly in the lead there.

"See, I understand why you'd list all the other soft factors, and maybe there is a second order effect from "web usage" on next generation device purchase, but it's apparently so weak that last year's leader in this stat (and by a huge margin, if the data linked is to be believed) suffered from slow growth (+15%) in an exploding market (+68%), and lost market share accordingly. (-17%)"

Apples growth is slower because they started at such a high number to begin with. Obviously, that number will increase slower. It's called maturity. The Android devices started from a lower number. They could sell half as many devices as Apple and still have a higher percentage.
Windows 8 tablets phones grew approximately 100% this year: From nothing to almost nothing. It gets even worse when you divide that by companies (Dell, HP, Microsoft, etc). Not a very good outlook.
Now, do the same with the tens of companies that are offering Android tablets. With the exception of Samsung, no one else is really doing much. But combined, they give the appearance of a formidable high number. And more companies have released more tablets recently.
But when you compare the different companies, the metrics look entirely different. It shows Apple still above everyone else by a fair margin.

The point is, does higher market share mean a better device? Does it mean that people are using those devices more? Does it mean better apps? Or a better app ecosystem? Does it equate with a better user experience? Those are my questions.

In my opinion, it is overall device sale market share that is a somewhat dubious metric, simply because it is often compared to an OS used by three tablets from one company in comparison to at OS that is used on many dozens of tablets offered b dozens of companies, all arguably with a different inconsistent user experience and inconsistent quality.
Again, take that as you will.

"Is there a correlation between "web usage" and device market share?"

I never claimed it did. I claimed that it equated somewhat with device usage.

"how high would "web usage" have to climb to see Ipads growing at least in line with the market?"

That would depend on the number of tablet market entrants, and how much they charge. If they price their tablets at cost, or even a loss, then obviously there are more people that would consider them.

But again I ask: does that mean that those cheaper products are actually well designed products that offer a superior user experience?
Or does that mean they were simply bought because they were the cheapest?

The change in Windows licensing fees couldn't come sooner! Let's see if the OEMs can capitalize and push $199 to $249 tablets, this is Microsoft's only shot at having a noticeable impact on the market. Let's go!

I think the metrics are OK somewhat but dont say a lot either...
Why I buy a device and what I use it for is a personal choice. You may just be seeing that the typical ipad users dont have PCs or equiv.
I use my tablet lightly for surfing as the desktop is just better for lots of surfing. But I rarely shop anyway? so the adhoc stuff is a very small proportion of my use. If you could measure hours of use it may mean more but then again maybe not.
Apple users by and large have no other real use other than consumption of content. So if you acknowledge we all have limited time we apportion this time accordingly.

I do find the logic flawed that a person crows about the best company being the one that extracts the maximum out of their pocket?
You're not Apple or part of the family trust fund.
Thinking you're clever and rich because of affliation as a non-vested contributor is stupid.

It seems to me that Android has become the mobile choice for phones and tablets. It's difficult to argue with the level of market share that it currently has and continues to grow dramtically. At this point, Microsoft has made little in the way strides in gaining any significant market share. 4% market share in both phone and tablet sells at this point is disappointing. However, I do think that if MS continues to market to emerging with low cost devices, then they have a chance and becoming the number #2 choice out there, over taking Apple in time.

Concerning the point that people buy Android tablets but don't actually use them, I have to say that I had the same belief but recently i changed my mind.

To put it simple, I have always disdained Android on tablets. I have been using a Lenovo Yoga notebook (Windows RT) for more than one year now and I think Windows 8 is more... beautiful? than Android.

Recently, though, I got an 8" Lenovo Yoga tablet (ironically same name.. but this one is a tablet with Android 4.2) as a gift and... I have to say that Android has the advantage of using the exact same interface of your daily smartphone. Which means that the learning curve is close to 0. Also, the "second generation" of Android tablets is finally showing a good quality and a decent speed. My gf has an iPad Mini retina, and although it is surely better than my Yoga tablet, well it is not really THAT MUCH better. And considering the Yoga costs almost the half of the iPad mini... well that makes me think that Android will quickly own 80% of the market.

So: easy to use, finally decent quality, cheap. I think Microsoft is in trouble here, especially if they can reproduce the same thing on bigger screen machines like laptops and all-in-ones. Hurry up Microsoft, before it's too late! Give Windows out for free!

The biggest difference is that Android does not have good quality tablet apps. Most of them are resized and poorly formatted smartphone apps. A couple of times I have issues clicking on a selection because the button did not scale properly on my Galaxy tab.

Sure, if you compare Android apps with iPad apps. But there are 2 things that play in favor of Android: 1) The huge market share makes developers want to customize their Android apps for tablets 2) The 8 inch form factor (eg. my Yoga Tablet 8") is great, in that the screen is small enough for a phone app not to be too much stretched.

If I compare Android with Windows 8 tablet instead, the situation is much worse for Windows: fewer apps, and what is worse the apps are not constantly updated. What is clear is that developers at the moment have no interest in following windows, they just release a rough app and let it go.

The only way to go is to quickly unify Windows Phone app store with Windows 8 app store, to reach a critical mass of apps for the customers, and to start making Windows an obvious choice for the OEMS by making it free or almost free.

"Sure, if you compare Android apps with iPad apps. But there are 2 things that play in favor of Android: 1) The huge market share makes developers want to customize their Android apps for tablets 2)"

That huge market share hasn't developed either into existence at this point. Nor is there any outlook that I have seen showing that to change any time soon.

If you market your hardware on the cheap to gain short-term hardware sales, how do you expect these same people who sacrifice quality for cheapness to buy your apps? A good portion of these people are either pirating apps or are enticed to download "free" adware/malware (there is a reason that Android has 99% of the malware market on mobile devices).
And if no one is buying their apps, what is the incentive of the developers to put any more than token efforts in?

"2) The 8 inch form factor (eg. my Yoga Tablet 8") is great, in that the screen is small enough for a phone app not to be too much stretched."

IOW, you are more than willing to compromise by using a phone app as a substandard tablet app?

"The only way to go is to quickly unify Windows Phone app store with Windows 8 app store, to reach a critical mass of apps for the customers, and to start making Windows an obvious choice for the OEMS by making it free or almost free."

Except that Android has already done this long ago. They have already lowered the bar for the entire market. Microsoft likely makes more money from Android IP royalties than they do from WP8/RT licenses.
Where is the incentive for users of Windows 8 to reach critical mass as you describe, rather than go to Android? Where is the drive? And how does Microsoft make money from it?